Promoting the rule of law is vital for the success of domestic and international postconflict
state-building efforts. Yet in post-conflict settings, non-state justice systems
handle most disputes, retaining substantial autonomy and authority. Legal pluralism's
importance, however, is rarely recognized and dramatically under-theorized. This thesis
demonstrates that multiple justice systems can co-exist and contribute to the
development of a democratic state bound by the rule of law. Domestic and international
efforts, however, must be cognizant of the overarching legal pluralism paradigm that
exists when trying to build the rule of law and tailor their strategies accordingly.
By drawing on two divergent case studies, Timor-Leste and Afghanistan, this
dissertation examines the conditions under which the rule of law can be advanced in
post-conflict settings featuring a high degree of legal pluralism and substantial
international involvement. Four distinct legal pluralism paradigms are proposed â
combative, competitive, cooperative, and benign â in order to understand how legal
pluralism functions in practice.
Timor-Leste successfully advanced the rule of law because the major parties remained
committed to democracy and developed institutions promoting accountability,
inclusivity, and legality. The state meaningfully collaborated with key non-state actors.
While the process was imperfect, Timorese state-officials effectively mediated between
the international community and local-level figures. This contributed to the effective
transformation of a competitive legal pluralist environment into a cooperative one. The
international community largely reinforced these positive trends.
Conversely, Afghanistan's post-2001 regime squandered the opportunity to build a
democratic state bound by the rule of law. Simultaneously, it failed to mediate between
the international community and the tribal and religious authorities essential for
legitimate rule. Despite international actor's substantial influence, external aid did little
good and was often counter-productive. These divergent approaches helps explain
judicial state-building's failure and the corresponding slide from competitive into
combative legal pluralism against the Taliban.</p